-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Possible dumb ramrod question,,
- Thread starter riarcher
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Musketman said:
Hmmm, At 27 1/2 gr. / Dram
6 Drams = 165 gr.
8 Drams = 220 gr.
Pretty darn stout charge for the boys!! :shocked2: I know my 110/120 can be,,,, voicestous at the range!
Hmmm, I see where I've been messing up (?). I've tried carts a couple of times and always put the wadded paper UNDER the ball. Just thought it was right way and seemed to make sense that it would seal the ball better. (silly me! :cursing: )
Back to trying carts. again!
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,147
- Reaction score
- 26
if confused is convexed,then i'm convexed, do you concurve? i'm soooo far behind this,i have a better chance of gettin shot by the v.p. than understandin.... no wait....that's been already done.. keep at it boys i'm tryin to keep up,i'm alearnin..! thanks!
Apparantly (read this somewhere when building a second model) that the changes were made from the first model to the second so it would be less of an aiming weapon and more of a volley, or point in that general direction weapon.riarcher said:
Still no better idea about the ramrod tip.
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,147
- Reaction score
- 26
ahhh, sorry,that was an attempt at humor....evidently it didn't work...knew concave and[url] convex....tryin[/url] to throw a curve at ya... concurve? but, i'm still paying attention! :thumbsup: RC
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,147
- Reaction score
- 26
Yeah,but somewhere it lost all it's luster... 
guess ya had to be there...that's cool, of course the last thing i got right on here was how many months have 28 days....but boy you sure can learn ALOT here! thank you! RC (One of these days i'm really gonna impress ya........1 small prayer wouldn't hurt ya know!)
guess ya had to be there...that's cool, of course the last thing i got right on here was how many months have 28 days....but boy you sure can learn ALOT here! thank you! RC (One of these days i'm really gonna impress ya........1 small prayer wouldn't hurt ya know!)riarcher said:
I think you all have it. As the regs stated the gun was fired in steps. First you bit off the end opposite the bullet and primed the gun, then you poured the rest of the powder along with a slightly undersized{any where from .70 to .74}ball and the paper cartridge itself.The rammer with its slightly convex{rounded} tulip or trumpet end would make better contact with the paper which served aa wadding although after repeated firing it was probably a real struggle to push a ball down because of the fouling. The French Charleville also used a slightly convex{rounded} end on it's trunpet ended rammer.The original English musket specs called for a rounded end amd my guess is that the rounded end would allow for better penetration and thus better compression of the paper cartridge making it easier to push down hard on the bullet.Incidentally these muskets were rarely used in prolonged fire fights. Linear warfare called for one or two massed volleys generally under 100 yards and then fixed bayonets to end the charge.With linear warfare the ranks were filled from the rear as the front ranks took casualties so that the front two ranks were always solid. You might start with 20 ranks deep and wind up with 10 ranks but they would be solid and ready for ths bayonet charge at the end.I hope I haven't added too much to the confusion.
Tom Patton
rudy parnell
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 418
- Reaction score
- 0
So did the torn end of the paper cartridge go into the muzzle first or was it the threaded end. My thoughts are that ragged paper on the face of the ball toward the open end of the muzzle is not much effect as wadding...But I can imagine that it is much easier to manage the ball and not loose your grip on it ...That is to say, I'd put the threaded end towards the powder and I bet that's how it was. With only two shots to fire befor the "Charge" I can only imagine that the less you had to fumble with the loading the more prepared the manuver. :hmm:
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
:rotf:
Well, this has been interesting and there have certainly been many brain cells burned out over it. There is a GOOD reason why the rammer for the Bess, Charleville, M1795 US musket and almost all other smoothbored muskets had convex rammer tips: As said above (Weird Jack I think) the object was speed! If you have a flat or concave tip, the rammer will get hung up on the muzzle - it's as simple as that, the rounded tip may catch the edge of the muzzle but it will slide on into the bore, a flat tip will not do so as easily. As far as being easier to make with the technology of the day, no, ramrods were not the easiest forging job in the armory. The rods were formed by the forging operations of darwing out and upsetting - as the rod was forged it was drawn out (being made longer and thinner) and was slightly smaller after the first three or four inches past the tip, being straight to the butt end (the end that goes into the ramrod hole first) after that. The business end (the tip) was then "upset" to make it the common mushroom shape and the end had to be carefully shaped to give it the rounded configuration we have been wondering about - it would be much easier to give it a flat or even concave shape than rounded. After the proper shape was acheived, the steel rammer (they had to be steel, not plain iron) was tempered to give it a degree of flexibilty so it could return to straight if miss-handled - iron would bend and become useless if it received a slight blow from the side.
As far as the balls, the British had a roughly .75 inch bore and required a .68 diameter ball, this allowed for easy (FAST) loading, even with the cartridge paper still wrapped around it - a good thing as it reduced windage for the first two or three or more shots and at least gave a relative degree of accuracy, all that was needed with linear tactics anyway. Once the bore became fouled, the soldier was taught to know that he would have to strip the paper from the ball - he could feel ramming become more difficult the more shots he fired. He could discard it or force the loose paper in the muzzle and ram it down on top of the ball. The paper, whether attached to the ball or loose, would hold the ball against the powder and avoid the problem of the ball rolling away from the charge and having the embarrassing :shocked2: effect of bulging or rupturing the barrel due to the air space - a dangerous situation that was well known to gunners of almost all experience from the days when guns were first invented. Remember, a soldier with a mangled left arm from such an accident can't wield the bayonet very well...
If you look at any recovered balls from a battlefield, you will notice that the balls used in military cartridges had little if any noticeable sprue. How? As stated above by a wise poster, they were cast, usually in gang moulds, and the sprues were cut with nippers. They then had large, often ragged looking sprues. This could cause difficulty in loading so the sprue had to bee removed along with any other casting deffects such as a ring left by the fact that the large gang moulds didn't always close too well, especially if they had been sprung in use. These rings could be removed with a sharp knife (!), but there was an easier way. A quantity of balls were put into a stout drum with a handle in a frame capable of handling the weight and rotated for a prescribed period of time. When finished, the balls were removed from the drum and they were surprisingly round and even in shape. Good thing lead is so soft. I hope this helps and sorry to rattle on... :yakyak: , its a bad habbit. :snore: :winking:
PS - Slippyfoot, you are right. The prescribed method was to put the ball in first with the attached paper following it - this was easier to manouver and had the same effect. Now I WILL shut up! :shocked2:
Well, this has been interesting and there have certainly been many brain cells burned out over it.
There is a GOOD reason why the rammer for the Bess, Charleville, M1795 US musket and almost all other smoothbored muskets had convex rammer tips: As said above (Weird Jack I think) the object was speed! If you have a flat or concave tip, the rammer will get hung up on the muzzle - it's as simple as that, the rounded tip may catch the edge of the muzzle but it will slide on into the bore, a flat tip will not do so as easily. As far as being easier to make with the technology of the day, no, ramrods were not the easiest forging job in the armory. The rods were formed by the forging operations of darwing out and upsetting - as the rod was forged it was drawn out (being made longer and thinner) and was slightly smaller after the first three or four inches past the tip, being straight to the butt end (the end that goes into the ramrod hole first) after that. The business end (the tip) was then "upset" to make it the common mushroom shape and the end had to be carefully shaped to give it the rounded configuration we have been wondering about - it would be much easier to give it a flat or even concave shape than rounded. After the proper shape was acheived, the steel rammer (they had to be steel, not plain iron) was tempered to give it a degree of flexibilty so it could return to straight if miss-handled - iron would bend and become useless if it received a slight blow from the side.As far as the balls, the British had a roughly .75 inch bore and required a .68 diameter ball, this allowed for easy (FAST) loading, even with the cartridge paper still wrapped around it - a good thing as it reduced windage for the first two or three or more shots and at least gave a relative degree of accuracy, all that was needed with linear tactics anyway. Once the bore became fouled, the soldier was taught to know that he would have to strip the paper from the ball - he could feel ramming become more difficult the more shots he fired. He could discard it or force the loose paper in the muzzle and ram it down on top of the ball. The paper, whether attached to the ball or loose, would hold the ball against the powder and avoid the problem of the ball rolling away from the charge and having the embarrassing :shocked2: effect of bulging or rupturing the barrel due to the air space - a dangerous situation that was well known to gunners of almost all experience from the days when guns were first invented. Remember, a soldier with a mangled left arm from such an accident can't wield the bayonet very well...
If you look at any recovered balls from a battlefield, you will notice that the balls used in military cartridges had little if any noticeable sprue. How? As stated above by a wise poster, they were cast, usually in gang moulds, and the sprues were cut with nippers. They then had large, often ragged looking sprues. This could cause difficulty in loading so the sprue had to bee removed along with any other casting deffects such as a ring left by the fact that the large gang moulds didn't always close too well, especially if they had been sprung in use. These rings could be removed with a sharp knife (!), but there was an easier way. A quantity of balls were put into a stout drum with a handle in a frame capable of handling the weight and rotated for a prescribed period of time. When finished, the balls were removed from the drum and they were surprisingly round and even in shape. Good thing lead is so soft. I hope this helps and sorry to rattle on... :yakyak: , its a bad habbit. :snore: :winking:
PS - Slippyfoot, you are right. The prescribed method was to put the ball in first with the attached paper following it - this was easier to manouver and had the same effect. Now I WILL shut up! :shocked2:
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Somehow I missed it... :redface:
Joel/Calgary
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,251
- Reaction score
- 6
riarcher said:
Despite the fact that at least some British units regularly engaged in "firing at marks" to improve accuracy, the military establishment was less interested in ballistic efficiency and precision than in speed and reliability for effective firepower at moderate to close range. Paper-on-top would not jam on ramming and would reliably hold the ball down onto the powder.
There was fair variability in the bore diameters, and, as mentioned, the ball was distinctly undersized to allow rapid loading even in the tightest acceptable barrel. Part of the reason for the large charges was to make up for pressure lost in the "windage" between the ball and the bore. I recall reading (but don't have the reference or URL at hand) that for French muskets, when they reduced the variability of acceptable bores then increased ball diameters to reduce windage in the early 19th century, they also reduced the powder charges significantly.
Also, "musket" powder was SLOW compared to the better powder of that time or this - think of Fg from the worst lots of Elephant, or from C&H in their last couple of years of production. Finally, some (maybe 10 grains?) was used for priming and possible spillage in priming.
That said, when I experiment with cartridges for convenience rather than reenactment, I either load paper-down *carefully*, or else use some other sort of wadding or filler under the ball or shot charge to seal the gasses.
Joel
I own a Baker rifle which has a flat surface on the flared end of my rammer and the other end has female threads for the attachment of cleaning and maintenance tools. I always thought that the flat surface was made for ease of manufacture. Until recently I could contribute nothing to this thread but, a recent discussion with other Baker owners and some more focused reading resulted in the following discovery. :yakyak: :yakyak:
In the Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen and Light Infantrypublished by the British War Office in 1798, there are the following commands:
Rod,
The ramrod is drawn quite ou by the right hand, the left quits the rifle, and grasps the ramrod the greadth of a hand from the bottom, which is sunk one inch into the barrel.
Home,
The cartridge will be fored down with both hands, the left then seizes the rifle about six inches from the muzzle, the soldier stands upright again draws out the ramrod with the right hadn, and put the end into the pipe.
Return,
The ramrod will be returned by the right hand, wich then seizes the rifle below the left.
Now from this and from design details and discussions of the Baker ramrod, which all point to placing the threaded end on the ball not the flared end I would propose the following for Bess ramrod use.
The ramrod is to be drawn straight out and the last end out inserted into the barrel to drive the ball home followed by pulling it out of the barrel inserting the last end out in the ramrod pipe and seating it for fireing. I make is speculation on the following assumptions:
Militaries don't tend to change things very often.
Militaries love uniformity
Militaries love simplicity
Pushing on the flared end with your hand is a lot easier than the non-flared end. (less injuries)
This method of use would be far easier for soldiers standing in ranks shoulder to shoulder than having to reverse the rod to get the flared end to the muzzle.
Having to reverse the ramrod twice during each loading would take time.
Your lucky to hit anything beyond 50 yds anyway with a bess combat load so what difference would it make if you made a dent in the ball?
If anyone has a document similar to the one I've quoted above for the line infantry it might be interesting to see what it says.
:yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :snore: :snore: :snore: :hmm: :hmm:
As to why the ends may have been convex, it would be easier on the palm. Flat, cheaper to produce. :hatsoff:
And that is my .02 pounds worth.
In the Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen and Light Infantrypublished by the British War Office in 1798, there are the following commands:
Rod,
The ramrod is drawn quite ou by the right hand, the left quits the rifle, and grasps the ramrod the greadth of a hand from the bottom, which is sunk one inch into the barrel.
Home,
The cartridge will be fored down with both hands, the left then seizes the rifle about six inches from the muzzle, the soldier stands upright again draws out the ramrod with the right hadn, and put the end into the pipe.
Return,
The ramrod will be returned by the right hand, wich then seizes the rifle below the left.
Now from this and from design details and discussions of the Baker ramrod, which all point to placing the threaded end on the ball not the flared end I would propose the following for Bess ramrod use.
The ramrod is to be drawn straight out and the last end out inserted into the barrel to drive the ball home followed by pulling it out of the barrel inserting the last end out in the ramrod pipe and seating it for fireing. I make is speculation on the following assumptions:
Militaries don't tend to change things very often.
Militaries love uniformity
Militaries love simplicity
Pushing on the flared end with your hand is a lot easier than the non-flared end. (less injuries)
This method of use would be far easier for soldiers standing in ranks shoulder to shoulder than having to reverse the rod to get the flared end to the muzzle.
Having to reverse the ramrod twice during each loading would take time.
Your lucky to hit anything beyond 50 yds anyway with a bess combat load so what difference would it make if you made a dent in the ball?
If anyone has a document similar to the one I've quoted above for the line infantry it might be interesting to see what it says.
:yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :snore: :snore: :snore: :hmm: :hmm:
As to why the ends may have been convex, it would be easier on the palm. Flat, cheaper to produce. :hatsoff:
And that is my .02 pounds worth.
Well, so much for the best laid plans of mice and men (or at least me). Although my last post (above) is correct as far as it goes, I did some digging and found the following.
REGULATIONS FOR THE FIELD EXERCISE, MANOEUVRES, AND CONDUCT OF THE INFANTRY OF THE UNITED STATES DRAWN UP AND ADAPTED TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA AND REGULAR TROOPS.
BY AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY.
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
WITH EXPLANATORY PLATES
PHILADELPHIA:
AS PRINTED BY FRY AND KAMMERER.
1812.
For loading
Draw, RAMMER.
1. Draw the rammer by extending briskly the arm, the nails upward, quit and instantly seize it again at the muzzle, the nails downward.
2. Draw it quite out, turn it between the face and the muzzle, and enter it into the muzzle as far as the hand.
Ram, CARTRIDGE.
1. Extend the arm, seize again the rammer, and with two strokes force down the cartridge, draw the rammer half out, seize it backhanded, draw turn and enter it as far as the tail pipe, placing the edge of the hand, the palm downwards, on the butt of the rammer, the fingers extended.
Return, RAMMER.
1. Force the rammer home, raising the piece with the left hand to the shouldering position, placing the right hand against the piece at the small, and bringing the right heel back beside the left.
Based on this, you can decide what to do with my above post. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
I give up. :hatsoff:
REGULATIONS FOR THE FIELD EXERCISE, MANOEUVRES, AND CONDUCT OF THE INFANTRY OF THE UNITED STATES DRAWN UP AND ADAPTED TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA AND REGULAR TROOPS.
BY AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY.
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
WITH EXPLANATORY PLATES
PHILADELPHIA:
AS PRINTED BY FRY AND KAMMERER.
1812.
For loading
Draw, RAMMER.
1. Draw the rammer by extending briskly the arm, the nails upward, quit and instantly seize it again at the muzzle, the nails downward.
2. Draw it quite out, turn it between the face and the muzzle, and enter it into the muzzle as far as the hand.
Ram, CARTRIDGE.
1. Extend the arm, seize again the rammer, and with two strokes force down the cartridge, draw the rammer half out, seize it backhanded, draw turn and enter it as far as the tail pipe, placing the edge of the hand, the palm downwards, on the butt of the rammer, the fingers extended.
Return, RAMMER.
1. Force the rammer home, raising the piece with the left hand to the shouldering position, placing the right hand against the piece at the small, and bringing the right heel back beside the left.
Based on this, you can decide what to do with my above post. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
I give up. :hatsoff:
